Jon-Osterholm

I had written a review of sufficient length, and was just about finished, and then the IMDB.com web page reloaded on me. And ZAP! I lost the whole thing. I fear the idea of computers taking control for a lot of reasons, and near the top of that list is the stupidity with which people have built technology to do mind-numbingly aggravating things like reloading a page, with no regard for what's going on on that page, at the cost of whatever one was doing on that page.

That's hardly as provocative toward anxiety and fear as when the full moon approaches, realizing that its presence will turn you into a wild, toothy, vicious killing beast. But it's close.

Did you know that The Wolfman (2010) won several awards? An Oscar, even: It was for Best Makeup. I'd like to thank IMDB, Apple, Xfinity cable internet, and, oh, I hope I haven't forgotten anyone, for wasting my time with that lost review.

This is the essence of my review (which I wrote in a note document first, this second time!):

I saw the theatrical release, at a movie theater, in 2010. I was looking forward to seeing a movie that was an improvement on the wolfman story that Jack Nicholson starred in more than a decade prior (that released in 1994).

I was intrigued by the setting and costuming and mood of the film as it began. But some scenes dragged, and I was beginning to think I was not going to see the quality of movie I had hoped for. Benicio Del Toro, a fine actor, was doing a great job as a brooding, roughhewn, angry character.

Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins are two of my most appreciated actors. I always look forward to seeing their performances, even in drearier films. This was one of the first things I'd ever seen Emily Blunt in, and I found her pained, emotional struggle engaging and usually convincing (like I said, at times this movie dragged).

What I remember most about this film, seeing it more than a decade ago, was how Benicio Del Toro delivered many of his lines. Unfortunately. He was nearly as hard to understand as a wolfman might've been, trying to speak. At some point his grumbling and mumbling, while I was watching the film in a theater, took control of my thoughts, and I pretty much coasted through the rest of the film, sitting in the theater wanting to ask the director - no, shout at the director - "Why?!" Why did he let this get out the door with that mumbling?

So much about this was appealing, rich and enjoyable. But several dragging scenes; Del Toro mumbling through too many lines; and me, sitting in that theater, wishing I could have been hit with a spotlight and supernaturally turned into the director of the film so I could encourage Del Toro to maintain his intense character, but get the marbles out of his mouth - it all made for a disappointing film, under a full moon or not.

Much of the way through, I felt that this epic -- epically stiff -- production must have suffered from being over budget and forced to be tightly restrained, so much that the final work didn't quite get the attention it needed. Whether that's true or not, it felt like it. The film felt it was not thoroughly developed, not rewritten enough to reach clarity, not expertly directed and edited. It did not achieve the kind of action or narrative pace, nor character growth, to keep a clever viewer engaged. It was not refined, no more than something for an audience to stare at 'xplosions 'n' pew-pews, a film one might let distract them while in a waiting room. This was rarely a popcorn-chomping film full of "wow."

I'm not resentful, but I wanted to like this story; I wanted to love this film. I was intrigued by the backstory -- it is rooted in a rejected Star Wars story pitch by Snyder -- and interested to see how Snyder and team might build a Star Wars-esque space opera that didn't feel like a ripoff -- or awkward in other ways. It felt like a ripoff. Plus, there are some obvious cultural and accent similarities that I liked at first, but was annoyed by, in total.

There is a space-Norse villager feel, which might have been OK on its own, but then space Nazis (Motherworld enforcers) showed up to be cold and cruel. Then, Charlie Hunnam's character had an... Irish accent, umm, sorta. Why? (Why not just go with his native Aussie accent?! Just a thought.)

Rebel Moon Pt. 1 is filled with some intended intense characters, some intended bold action sequences, and has a basic story that must have been great in a pitch session. But, with whatever struggles were encountered in creating this Netflix film, it did not make for a finished product that offered a refined, watchable tale.

It was not as horrible as, say, "The Spirit" (a painfully stiff 2008 Frank Miller fantasy flick), but it is not even on par with, for example, "Solo: A Star Wars Story" (a decent, not great, 2018 Han Solo origin film), in its cohesion and entertainment value.

What makes it worth it? The actors and the characters, while not fully developed in this struggling narrative. As the lead baddie, Ed Skrein does evil well. I am a sucker for star Sofia Boutella (Algerian actor, you might know her from a "Star Trek" reboot film or "The Mummy" with Tom Cruise, among other films) is about as intense a female actress as is out there. Other actors show up and their skills are apparent, but get hammered by the stumbling last half of the film. Boutella and the other actors can't save this story, but she and some others make it watchable. Just not watchable enough.

So, is the Zack Snyder director's cut of this coming? Hopefully, they'll put more effort into it.

I enjoyed plenty about Florida Man thanks to the characters, even ones that barely belonged, like Deputy Barker, a vacationing cop who has plenty of misfortunes, played by Clark Gregg (who also directed some episodes). Broadly, the series appealed to me because of the lead characters' complex relationships, and the some supporting roles that were hard to predict in amusing ways. Several of the characters, lead and supporting roles, were laudably portrayed. I'm a fan of dramatic work by the star, Edgar Ramirez, and that drew me to the series.

Some acting/characters were weak, though, and that's not the only thing weak in the series. The writers seem to be clueless about guns, gun laws, gun shows, and in some areas, cops, too: There were some low spots in the approach to these things.

Seeing the series' title, there were predictably juvenile digs at the state of Florida - when they're sunny it's one thing, but a few were just vacuous, unfunny gestures. Viewers could have done without some of the unfunny ignorance.

It is a crime and comedy show, so some of the weaknesses seemed almost necessary, as such work is often stumbling in several ways in order to bring the laughs. This is no Breaking Bad, but is fairly light, mature entertainment.

I gave it a generous 7/10 stars. I found it worth my time, like a relative who invites questionable people over for dinner.

It's only on Netflix.